Y&R: Week of May 11, 2009

[Sylph]

But that's what I'm saying: some are preparing for not condemning it and it hasn't even began properly!

[Dan]

Gotcha.

[MarkH]

That wasn't a ghost. Just like John isn't a ghost, Cassie isn't a ghost, Rex wasn't a ghost. That was an alcohol-induced dream/delusion/hallucination.

Deaths are NOT 'easily faked' and should not be. This was a young man who died, more or less before our eyes, two decades ago. On a show that doesn't "fake" deaths.

To preserve the integrity of this show, they have to write something plausible...I cannot imagine what it will be...but I am very intrigued to see how it is done.

I agree too. Let's face it...ANY scenario will be "near impossible" because HE DIED. But what we don't want is some rich sheikh sweeping in or some other deus ex machina. It has to make sense.

You have a problem with fandom. You have a problem with loyalty to a creative project because of an enduring relationship with it. Soaps uniquely can engender this kind of relationship...and yes, it can lead to "forgiving" fans.

There are reasons to love a show beyond its current merits.

Or in fandom. In loyal commitment to a creative product, because of what it has given in the past, and what it is anticipated to give in the future. But I know that statement was cleverly written to invoke defensive responses, so I have given you one.

To be clear, I'd rather not bring anyone back from the dead. I'd rather use death sparingly, and permanently...much like it is in life.

But, having surrendered myself into their storytelling, I will follow where they want to go, and then judge in retrospect. I feel this is what a fan owes. And I do not feel that "fan" is a bad or dirty word. (Yes, I know its origins are 'fanatic'). I don't think fan means "uncritical"...I think it means "patient" and "open to new experiences".

I love this. This is very accurate.

Careful...you may be a pathological fanboi. Then again, your username seems to embrace that! Good for you!

Who has said that?

[Sylph]

You came up with at least 50 different scenarios that could work for you in about 2 days!!!

[MarkH]

I thought I came up with one...and I didn't say it would work for me ... indeed I said it had too many holes.

But, yes, there is a margin for success here for me. I do not see why that is a problem. Why should I expect, anticipate or desire failure? What a miserable life view that would be....

[Sylph]

That is all very beautiful, all flutes, nymphs & satyrs Utopia... However, I have a problem when fans accept everything thrown in their face no matter what. Especially if it is very offensive to some of them. That's what I have a problem with. No matter how awful Y&R treats you, MarkH, you forgave it all. I don't know whether that's good... Or...

Exactly. You have completely surrendered to a point where it's completely futile for you to discuss any story because no matter what, even if bad, you will love it.

[Sylph]

Furthermore, you imagine some of us who criticise a show as some neurotic, even psychotic, misanthropic, soap hating, contrarian Schadenfreude lovers who just don't understand that it's all about surrendering and awaiting the (bitter) end.

[MarkH]

Oh, really, the flutes again? Shouldn't a writer introduce some creativity into their metaphors?

In any event, read again. I said "surrender to their storytelling" and "judge in retrospect".

Let me give an example. I have no respect when somebody says "I went to that movie, but I walked out halfway through because I couldn't stand what I was seeing..."

Sure--that is one's right to do--but in so doing, you lose all right to judge the creative product. Why? Because you did not give it a chance to repair the things you despised...to tie it together to make sense.

A movie is a 105 minute investment. A soap...much more. It is folly to watch soap and prejudge. The two things simply cannot co-exist.

The correct critical stance, if one means to be critical, is to experience the gestalt of the project, and then evaluate.

I think part of the disconnect may be the different "types" of viewers that cara mia identified. But I think, too, some of you fancy yourselves as "creators". Others of us do not aspire to that...or, said differently, we create in different parts of our lives that have nothing to do with soaps. Thus, while still "meta", it is easier for us to enjoy these shows as they were meant to be: creative products.

Again: It is not that one does not judge and evaluate. It is that one does not PRE-judge and PRE-evaluate. Certainly, one does not reach a conclusion solely from initial premises.

I do? Where do I do that? Did I do a drunk-post where I said that?

[Sylph]

I'm not a writer! LMAO! But nevermind, five posts from now you'll call me that again.

I am sorry if I misunderstood you, but all I saw was: See, this is how this will make sense. This is how this other story will make sense. See, I saw this YouTube video yesterday and this totally make sense... You "totally made sense" of it and it hasn't even started.

I completely agree.

I think so, too. I think some of us watch it with different eyes. Some are consumers, some are (too) critical conosumers.

That whole "miserable life" thing.

[MarkH]

Very likely. I guess it was from Vee that constructed you were a writer or a wannabe writer or something.

Oh, I absolutely engage in flights of fancy. I absolutely think "how will they go from there"? I absolutely fill in the blanks while I wait for resolution. Don't we all?

Heck, whole shows exist for just that reason (crime dramas, House, Lost, Fringe, etc.). We all do that. But I can't judge the story based on my flights of fancy. I can only judge on what the creators give me.

Someone else wrote that? My life hasn't been particularly miserable. Has yours?

[Antoyne]

Good show today?

[Adam]

Moving on....... Jill's hair reverted back to pre-bangs.... I thought the bangs looked kind of silly on her antway.... or were these scenes shot out of order? I still have yet to see the big reveal (I will catch it online tonight when Global posts yesterday's episode).... but I am excited. I too, however share worries that this is a make or break moment for the MAB regime. Just how is she going to explain this in a somewhat plausible way? Especially if it is indeed the real Phillip. I want Cane gone.... but in a realistic manner (if that is possible)

[Cashton]

Dee - you are so lovely.

Today's episode did not disappoint. Just to see the Real Philip on my screen made me want to jump outta my seat. Uncle Langley....hmmm. Did it look like Philip was in a bar? Maybe he's a bartender? Cane just got all that money from Kay and he wants to give it away - he's still a "good" guy. And I just had another thought - what if Phillip actually died while the Cane was impersonating Phillip?

And just to clarify - speculation IS NOT accepting of the s/l in advance. It's just because we're so excited about what's going to happen that we try to envision what's coming up.

The gas-lighting s/l is good and intense because it involves Victor's home in a new way, outside of business, with his new family, but I still don't get Adam's motives. We know he hates Victor, but would he really be happy if Ashley lost that baby? And if she DOES lose that baby because of him...Adam meet corner.

[dm.]

Maybe it's more like "you put everyone else first and never cared for me, so now I'll mess with the people you care about."

[Cashton]

Yep. You got it. He's evil.